Support the Café

Search our Site

The InterAnglican Standing Committee and the illusion of consultation

The InterAnglican Standing Committee and the illusion of consultation

The Anglican Communion’s ponderously named faith and order group released a report yesterday on its meeting earlier this month in Korea. It has me wondering whether Rowan Williams and proponents of the proposed Anglican Covenant understand that they are urging this document upon us in a way that validates all of our worst fears about the document itself.

Many of us who oppose the covenant do so because its fourth section invests disciplinary authority in the Standing Commission of the Anglican Communion, a body that is accountable only in the most attenuated sort of way to members of the churches that constitute the communion.

One feels both gratified and alarmed, then, to learn that at is meetings last week, IASCUFO (the InterAnglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith and Order) recognized the importance of “being a fully representative group” and “re-affirm[ed] the significance of the Anglican Communion Covenant for strengthening our common life.” Gratified, because, well, it is nice to have your opponents make your points for you. Alarmed because the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office continue to behave as though the more centralized church they hope to create already exists.

Whatever its claims, IASCUFO is in no way representative. Its members are not elected to represent their provinces, but are cherry-picked by the communion office to ensure the outcome that the Archbishop of Canterbury desires, while creating the illusion of consultation. (In this way it is similar to the Covenant Design team and the Windsor Continuation Group.) Of the 19 individuals named in the release, no more than three hail from churches that have adopted the covenant. (Precise numbers are hard to come by, as many churches don’t actually care enough about the covenant to have made a public statement indicating their attitude toward it.) Yet the group asserts its representative nature, and then affirms what the churches its members allegedly represent have not: that the covenant is essential in strengthening our common life.

IASCUFO employs collegial rhetoric, but it behaves like a pressure group. What sets it apart from other pressure groups is that it uses financial resources contributed by member churches to lobby on behalf of a covenant that many of those churches will not sign—a covenant that would assure that essential decisions in the communion would continue to be made by purportedly representative bodies that are in no way accountable to the communion’s member churches.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If any group associated with the Anglican Communion Office put out a communiqué that expressed disagreement with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I’d fall down in a faint. The ABC is, after all, only the first among equals, one among many primates, but a good many of the various appointed groups and committees do not look representative or independent from where I sit.

June Butler

Lionel Deimel

I’m not aware of the origin of the IASCUFO, but it does seem that the Archbishop of Canterbury creates some new body whenever his ideas need more support. If the IASCUFO isn’t Rowan’s puppet, it is at least his lapdog.

Someone has suggested—sadly, I cannot take credit for this—that IASCUFO stands for Inter-Anglican Standing Committee on Uniformity, Fear and Oppression. If IASCUFO doesn’t stand for that, it should.


I can’t tell you how much this saddens me—that the AC’s faith&order group has been completely subverted to be Just Another Source of (One-Sided) Friction within the AC.

Who would have guessed that the Anglican’s representative body to the larger oikoumene would need More Ecumenism inside of it? O_o

JC Fisher, disillusioned Anglican ecumenist.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café